WITH  SPECIAL  REFERENCE  TO  THE 


I    THE  OATH.  I 

8  i 

§  "I 

i            A  SERMON  | 

Si  ^ 

i                                           ON  THE  g 

3           NATURE  AND  OBLIGATION  iJF  THE  uA  I'll,  g 

io 

6 

I      OATH  OF  ALLEGIANCE.  | 

S      *  g 

0  DELlVJii;iD    IN    THE  O 

ismHSiiii!,  I 

1  LEXmOTON,  VA,,  MARCH,  27th,  1864.  ^  g 

I               BY  i 

i              BBV.   W.    H.    RUPFNER.  g 

S  -g 

S                          [PUBLISHED  BY  REQUEST.]  g 

i     -                 '"^          ■  ?■  P 

S                                         LEXINGTON:  ^      g 

^                                        PRINTED  AT  THE   GAZETTE  OFFICE.  *0 

g                                                     1864.  & 

I  .        ■  i 


George  Washington  Flowers 
Memorial  Collection 

DUKE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 


ESTABLISHED   BY  THE 

FAMILY  OF 

COLONEL   FLOWERS 


ihr  e)vl)i. 


I'xoDUsj  20:  ,'f, .  Thou  shalt  jrot  take  tl  '  tfie  Lord  thy  (}od 

in  rain ;  for  the  Lord  icill  net  hold  h  ■■"■,  fTx/f  tnl-^th  hi.^ 

name  in  'sain. 

The  long  neglect  of  popular  iiisitrurtiua  uu  luv:  i  un-  n.pn.,  lui- 
plied  ill  tills  ooHiinamlnient.  namely,  the  oath,  in  its  viiriGnsuses  and 
nbu8e«,  and  the  (jpeh  degradation  of  this  soloinn  act  by  the  practice 
of  conversational  •wearinir.  and  the  unnecc:*sary  i:.altiplication  of 
civil  oaths,  are  now  in  the  time  of  trial  exhihitin.:  the  natural  fruit; 
cither  in  the  form  of  ignorance  and  bewildernunt  as  to  what  is 
rig;ht,  from  which  proc«»ed  practical  errors)  over  which  we  try  to 
throw  the  mantle  of  charity,  or  in  the  inore  dan;;erou3  form  oftl. 
laxity  and  indifference  to  the  moral  obligation  iavolVed.  whick  arew 
degrading,  damagin<r,  and  impious. 

Our  public  virtue  and  self-respect,  our  reputation  abroad,  the 
strength  of  the  re^istiuice  we  offer  to  subjniration,  the  discourage- 
irtent  of  the  invader,  and  above  all,  onr  prospect  of  Divine  aid — are 
eath  and  all  involved  largely  in  ft  right  aentiment  and  practice  with 
regard  to  this  subject.  And  as  a  result  of  this  convi(]tion,  it  is 
proposed  to  present  on  this  occasion  tho  received  Christian  doctrine 
concerning  the  oath;  and  then  to  make  such  npplicatioQS  of  the 
doctrine  as  are  needed  in  enabling  the  honest  patriot  and  the  con- 
8«ientious  Christian  to  determine  questions,  which  ara  now  forced 
upoti  every  mind. 

1.  That  oaths  are  lawful  and  proper  tm  some  occasions  is  proved 
hy  natural  religion,  by  the  exatnplo  of  (iod  himself,  by  the  Mosaie 
law,  by  the  feaaraple  of  our  Saviour,  and  of  patriarchs,  prophets 
and  apostles,  and  by  the  sanction  of  the  Church  generally. 

2,  The  term**  in  which  the  oath  is  expressed  have  varied,  but  the 
same  elonental  ideas  l:ave  always  b«eu  expressed  or  implied.     Aa  . 
ordinary  assertion  or  promise  embodies  in  itself  no  religious  idea. 
Men  are  indeed  responsible  to  God  for  all  their  sayings  and  doings, 
but  in  its  essential  character,  a  promise  is  simply  a  human  ti'ans-^  • 
action.     On  tho  other  hand,  the  oath,  whether  assertory  or  promis- 
sory, is  a  religious  transaction  ;  in  which  God  is  made  not  only  a 
Avitness,  but  a. party.     In  its  broadesit  meaning,  it  is  an  act  of  wor- 
ship, rendered  \ty  the  party  administering  and  tho  party  taking  tho 
oath.     It  recognizes  God's  existence,  and  his  righteous  government. 
It  appeals  t©  Him,  as  the  omnipresent   witness  and  the  infallible 
judge.     It  invokes  his  blessing  or  his  curse,  according  to  the  truth  . 
or  falsity  of  him  who  swears.     But  there  is  a  deeper  raeaning  still 
in  the  solemn  tjansaction.     It  is  a  cove)iaat  with  God.     '^So  help  me 
God.''     The  Almighty  is  thu:i  api)ealed  to,  and  made  a  party.     The  , 
swearer  in  substance  says — "I  have  now  a  testimony  to  render,  or 

a  promise  to  keep.  Thy  help,  oh  God,  I  need,  and  hereby  invoke. 
According  to  ray  faithfulness  in  thy  sight,  so  deal  thou  with  me, 
both  now  and  fofever.  I  gi'^Q  ray  pledge  to  thee,  arid  as  I  keep  it, 
so  help  me  God."  .  \. 

That  tho  Almighty  is  thus  made  a  direct  party ,  in  the  solemn 
transaction  is  shown,  not  only  by  the  nature  of  the  tcaasaction,  it-  . 


Note  by  the  Author. — Some  points  iu   this  discourse  have  been 
nuiplified,  and  some  additional  political  references  introduced  &ince'' 
y%  deliT*!*-. 


s«if,  but  bj  tbe  toanner  ki  wkiCh  U  is  spoken  €^  in  the  Sctlptures, 
The  oath  was  a  divinely  appointed  element  in  the  Mosaic  cotistita- 
tion,  and  it  is  habitually  Teferfed'to  as  a  tran'safrtion  witk  God. — 
(See  Ex.  22:  ll,  1  Kiiifrs  2:  4^—44— Eccle.  8:  2,  et  cet.,  vrhere  it 
it  i^*  called  "thd  oath  of  God.")  lu  that  remarkable  statist©  pre- 
scribing the  mode  of  trial  of  a  Woman  suspected  of  infidelity  to  her 
husband,  the  idea  is  practically  carried  out.  The  woman  is'  Brst  put 
upon  her  oath,  and  after  being  required  to  swallow  a  drink  in  itself 
harmless,  is  left  wholly  to  the  judgement  of  God  for  her  viBdication 
or  co^fedemHatioD.  But  this  point  is  settled  by  the  case  of  Zedekiah 
and  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  which  the  former  had  taken  an  oath  of 
fealty  to  the  latter.  When  he  violated  the  oath,  he  was  called  to 
aceonnt  by  the  Almighty,  as  tho  offended  party,  "Thus  saith  tha 
]/6rd  God";  As,  I  live,  surely  mine  oath  that  he  liath  despised,  ami 
mt/  covenant  that  he  hath  broken,  oven  it  will  I  recompense  upo-u 
his  own  iiead."  (Ezek.  17:  19.)  This  oath,  though  given  to  a 
heathen  tyrant  is  here  claimed  by  the  Almighty  to  have  been  i\ 
covenant  with  himself. 

Although  this  coveuantal  feature  in  the  oath  is  really  implied!  iu 
the  common  doctrine  on  the  subject,  it  has  nut  commonly  been  d^elt 
upon  with  the  emphasis  which  it  deserves,  owing  probably  to  the 
recoil  of  the  Protestant  mind  from  the  extravagant  Papal  assump- 
tions, which  have  grown  out  of  this  view  of  the  subject.  It  is  well 
known,  that  th®  Romish  Clergy  have  ever  claimed  exclusive  con- 
trol in  the  matter  of  oaths ;  and  tlieir  claims  have  been  allowed  in 
Catholic  countries,  to  the  extent  of  requiring  a  Priest  to  aid  in  the 
■administration  of  the  oath,  eren  in  civil  matters.  Such  ind-eed 
would  seem  to  be  the  present  law  of  Franc©.  A  late  Cliief  Justice 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  FraijjC'.e  in  a  work  on  the  judiciary  maketJ 
the  following  explicit  statement: 

''Every  judicial  problem,  the  solution  of  which  was  subordinate 
to  the  cath  of  one  of  the  parties,  necessarily  belongs  to  the  exclu- 
sive jut^sdiction  of  the  Courts  of  the  Church:  for  the  oath  being 
a  pact  i>etwee7i  God  and  the  donscience  of  man,  cannot  be  taken 
except  through  those  whom  God  has  appointed  to  represent  hiia  oii 
earth." 

Here  an  erroneous  sequence  is  brought  into  imm-ediate  coD»ection 
with  a  great  truth.  And  it  is  just  the  error  also  of  the  old  Roraau 
law  in  the  days  of  the  Empire.  The  oath  was  then  viewed  in^  itft 
true  character  as  ''a  pact  between  God  and  the  conscience  of  man," 
<ind  the  inference  drawn  was  that  civil  government  had  no  right  to 
punish  perjury.  Consequently  th«  Roman  law  left  the  offender 
wholly  in  the  hands  of  God.  the  error  of  both  the  Catholic  Church 
and  the  Roman  Empire  consisted  in  their  failure  to  recognize  Civil 
Government  as  the  brdidance  of  God,  and  as  the  agent  of  divine 
justice  in  human  society  ;  and  hence  as  authorized  to  punish  perju- 
ry, because  of  its  injurioiis  public  effects. 

In  combatting  such  erroneous  applications  of  a  great  truth,  let  us 
not  lose  the  impression  which  ought  to  be  made  upon  every  mind 
by  the  truth  itself;  that  whenever  we  bind  our  souls  with  an  oath, 
"we  enter  into  a  covenant  with  God,  rather  than  with  man,  and  lay 
our  souls  under  the  tremetidous  sanctions  of  eternity!  When  prop- 
erly viewed,  nothing  can  be  more  solemn  and  awful  than  this  trans- 
action :  and  woe  to  the  man  or  woman,  who  lightly  regards  it, 

3.  B-ecause  ot  this  being  the  highest  and  the  most  impreserre 
obligsitioD  that  f  aa  bs  laid  upon  the  homan  cocs^iiencre,  th«  c»th  has 


^,«-*}'«  been  resorted  t«  iu  m&tteri  ©f  great  mowient,  and  has  alwayt 
hjhen  oousidered  aa  indiapenaable  el«ment  in  civil  goTernment.  The 
i»ost  thoughtful  minds,  both  Christian  and  heathen,  have  erar 
regarded  htunan  law  without  the  sanctions  of  relijjion  as  an  inade- 
quate restraint  upon  human  wickedness.  The  oath  is  the  otficial 
acknowledgement  of  this  pregnant  fact  by  the  civil  government, 
and  an  ot!ifial  act  of  homage  to  the  Supreme  Being.  It  is  the  point 
of  contact  between  the  terrestial  and  the  celestial,  through  which 
the  superior  forces  of  the  latter  are  communicated  to  the  otherwise 
incoherent  frame-work  of  the  former.  There  ia  not  a  valuable 
interest  in  society,  whioh  is  not  held  in  security  by  the  moral  power 
of  the  oath.  Every  man's  property,  his  personal  liberty,  his  repu- 
tation, his  religious  freedom,  his  domestic  security,  all  that  he  holds 
<doar  upon  earth,  are  covered  by  this  high  and  holy  ordinance.— 
»ery  otficer  under  the  law  and  constitution  in  all  their  varioss 
departments  takes  upon  his  soul  this  tremendous  obligatiofl.  (Alas, 
that  so  many  should  assume  it  lightly  I)  All  of  them  aro  sworn  to 
protect  every  member  of  society  in  every  valuable  interest.  And 
no  one  can  eonio  forward  with  any  sort  of  testimony  with  regard  to 
the  humblest  member  of  the  community  without  "first  enterinpf  into 
this  solemn  covenant  with  the  God  of  the  universe  "to  speak  tbe 
truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth."  So  that  every 
man  has  a  direct  personal  interest  in  preserving  the  oath  in  all  ita 
purity,  its  sacredness  and  its  binding  authority.  'Tis  in  this  ordi- 
nance, reposes  the  highest  confidence  of  society.  All  feel  that  the 
man  who  has  taken  the  oath  has  given  the  highest  pledge  for  his 
veracity  and  faithfulness,  that  it  is  possible  for  him  to  give. 

The  most  truthful  man  in  bis  common  conversation,  cither  as  to 
Assertion  or  promise  is  rendered  more  accurate  and  reliable  when 
he  lifts  his  hand  to  God.  And  many  are  the  men,  who  ordinarily 
pay  but  little  regard  to  the  obligations  of  truth,  who  would  not  dare 
to  utter  a  falsehood  under  oath.  And  whilst  there  are  some,  whose 
.sordid  souls  will  disregard  the  welfare  of  society  and  will  brave  all 
the  terrors  of  an  angry  God  for  some  paltry  pecnniarj  consideration, 
yet  they  are  the  exceptions  in  every  community,  and  even  they  are 
probably  never  altogether  reckless  of  the  solemn  sanc^ons  thty  are 
incurring.  Surely  it  becomes  every  people,  whether  in  peace  or 
war,  to  exercise  a  jealous  vigilance  over  this  pnblic  jewel,  this  Facred 
talisman  ;  and  to  frown  upon  every  act  or  opinion,  whereby  its  moral 
dignity  is  impaired,  or  its  authority  relaxed. 

4.  There  are  some  principles  with  regard  to  the  use  of  oaths, 
which  need  to  be  stated,  but  do  not  need  to  be  argued,  because  of 
the  unanimity  with  which  tliey  are  accepted  by  those  who  have 
examined  the  subject,  and  because  of  their  manifest  accordance  with 
the  Scripture  teaching,  and  with  the  nature  of  the  transaction  itself. 

a.  The  oath  is  too  solemn  and  dignified  a  sacrament  to  be  properly 
used  on  trivial  occasions.  This  canon  is  violated  by  the  individual, 
when  he  swears  in  common  conversation,  and  by  the  State,  whea 
oaths  are  required  in  cases  where  the  simple  word  of  the  citizen 
should  ae  rec«ived  as  sufficient,  or  where  ordinary  penalties  would 
afford  a  sufficient  protection  to  the  public  interest. 

b.  A  promissory  oath  cannot  lawfully  be  taken  by  any  one,  who 
is  thereby  required  to  do  or  to  sanction  that  which  he  knows  or 
believes  to  be  wrong.     This  principle  is  so  manifestly  in  harmony 
with  the  nature  of  the  oath,  that  \\  has  all  the  sp]f-e"^id(jncing  au 
thoritj  of  an  axiom. 


e. ■  Thfe  oath  slioiild  be  iaken  Avitliottt  mefital  reserrftti6ti,  That 
is,  the  iiategfity  f"  ''  tranpfictiou  is  j\ot  tobe  itoarred  by  secret 
purposes  or  iinc  :ceptions,  such  as  were  allowed  in  Jesu- 

itical cfisuist^y. 

d.  He  whitf accepts  the  bath  is  always  bound  jurare  in' tiSiimxim 
rmpontnih,  ■f'^'i^-  i-^  +o  Wear  in  the  sense  meant  by  the  pafty  impos- 
ing the  oarl  taken  for  his  bcHefit. 

e.  Tliebi'  re  of  the  oath  is  not  afTected  by  the  character 
of  the  administrator,  or  his  iriglit  to  administer  the  oath.  Tf  taken, 
it  becdme's  a  pledge  to  God, 

/.  An  oath  is  not  binding  wlien  it  requires  the  taker  to  commit 
sin,  or  to  do  impossibilities.  'Diis  point  will  be  more  fully  explained 
under  the  next  head.  \    , 

5.  The  bindinf^uuthority  of  oaths  in  geri'erar ratu rally  ftoHvs  IVoni 
the  principles  already  stated,  It  is  agreed  among  casuists,  that 
tiiere  are  no  exceptions  and  no  limits  to  the  binding  authority  of 
oaths,  except  the  always-  implied  limitations  of  possibility  uud  mo- 
rality. All  obligations  are  necessarily  limited  by  the  extent  of 
human  ability  ;  asd  it  would  be  a  moral  absurdity  to  affirm  it  tQ  \q> 
ft  duty  to  do  that  M'hich  is  wrong.  He  who  swears  to  do  a  thing 
which  ke  believes  at  the  time  to  be  innocent,  and  afterwards  dis- 
covers'to  be  criminal,  is  absolved  by  the  prior  and  immutable 
obligation  to  do  right.  If  he  knew  before  taking  the  oath  tho,t  it 
involved,  or  might  inrolre^  the  doing  of  wrong,  he  ought  not  to  keep 
it;  but  he  ■comiaits  a  crime  in  taking  the  oath,  of  which  he  ought  to 
repent,  for  he  was  morally  bound  to  refuse  it.  Herod  was  guilty 
of  two  distinct  crimes  in  the  case  of  the  dancing  girl  and  John  the 
Baptist;  first,  in  binding  himself  by  an  oath  which  might  in  many 
ways  require  of  him  to  sin,  and  second,  in  committing  the  eriminp,! 
act,  which  he  was  called  upon  to  do,  instead  of  renouncing  and 
repenting  of  hie  oath. 

^  All  obligations  are  to  be  V-onstrned  in  harmony  with  the  entire  ■ 
code  of  moral  duties:  but  ai)art  fram  th^se  natural  and   always 
iihplied  limitations  of  the  oath,  we  have  no  right  to  place  t(«y 
restriction,  or  to  allow  any  exception,  to  the  binding  authority  of 
the  "oath  of  God." 

That  a^man  is  bound  by  his  oathjis  one  of  those  elementary  truths, 
which,  although  susceptible  of  irreft-agable  proof,  do  not  need  to  be 
elaborately  proved  from  either  Scripture  or  reason;  because  they 
are  instinctively  accepted  as  true  by  the  human  mind.  It  is  there- 
fore unnecessary  to  comment  at  much  length  upon  the  divine  Law, 
which  is  clear  and  unequivocal,  still  less  to  draw  arguments  from 
the  intrinsic  natureof  the  transaction  itself,  and  its  value  to  society. 

The  third  commandment,  ''Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the 
Lord  thy  God  in  vain,"  certainly  forbids  all  violations  of  the  oath. 
And  Moses,  the  inspired  lawgiver,  by  whose  haad  the  Decalogue 
was  delivered,  and  who  was  coKnmissioneel  to  expound  the  law, 
gives  to  the  people  in  'K  umbers  301  2,  a  commentary  on  the  3rd 
pommaudment  in  the  form  of  special  statute:  which  is  in  these 
words — "If  a  man  vow  a  vow  unto  the  Lord,  or  swear  an  oath  to 
bind  his  soul  with  a  bond:  he  shall  not  break  his  word  :  he  shall  do 
according  to  all  that  proceedeth  out-  of  his  mouth." 

What  could  be  clearer,  more  explicit,  or  freer  from  proviso  and 
ground  of  exception ! 

6.  Conclusive  as  such  eonsidorati^ns  really  are,  wiien  their  weight 
is  dnly  estimated,  there  are  intelligent,  hcnest,  Christian  j>eop}e, 


who  allow  theiJiselveg  to  iall  in  with  tlie  suktiuiout  that  .111  oulli 
taken  under '■coin])ulsion,*'  as  it  is  callcd^.is^  not  binding.  It  is  au 
improper  use  of  tho  word  "compulsion"  to  apply  i^  ^o  the  taking  an 
oath.  Human  power  may  tuke  away  a  man's  property,  his  lihorty, 
-or  his  life,  but  no  potcer  on  earth  am  a-mpel  a  mu)i  to  take  un  oath. 
Pcnaltiej*  may  be  intiicted  upon  hini  for  refu.sing»  but  if  lie  tikes  it 
at  all,  it  is  h'is  own  voluntary  ((ct.  Hand  not  tyrxnts  been  thu^;  test-  . 
in-  tho  integrity  of  the  good  iu  all  ages  of  the  world  i  And  whilit. 
tile  feebler  have  ott«u  succumbed  to  their  tyranny,  the  nobk-r  souls 
have  dffiod  their  utn)ost  terrors,  and  illustrated  the  sublime  and 
blessed  fact,  that  the  h-anian  soul  is  //v^— free  to  cko08«  und  free  to 
refuse.  '■ 

licfu^,^e  h  sought,  however,  from  the  obligation  of  tlio  oath  under 
a  provision  of  the  civil  law,  whereby  contracts  m^de  under  Jure&>! 
are  voidable.  Duress  according  to  law  is  eitKer  imprisonment,  or 
jeoi)ardy  of  life  or  limb.  And  contr.^cts  made  to  regain  liberty,  or 
to  save  life,  cannot  be  enforc«d  by  the  law  of  tiiG  land,  and  values 
extorted  under  such  circumstaucws  are  recoverable.  The  law  is  no 
doubt  a  proper  one.  It  is  based  upon  the  lact,  that  a  man  who  has 
extorted  from  another  a  promise,  say  of  money,  by  the  use  of  vio- 
lence or  intimidation,  has  not  thereby  acquired  any  just  right  to  the 
money.  There  has  not  been  in  tho  sense,  of  the  law  the  ''value 
received"  by  the  defendant,  which  is  the  sole  ground  oil  which  a 
plaintiff  can  enforce  any  claim.  Moreover  the  imprisonment,  or 
threatened  murdering  or  maiming,  are  pre-supposed  to  have  been 
uidawful;  and  it  would  be  an  inconsistency  in  the  law  to  allow  its 
machinery  to  be  used  for  the  enforcement  of  claims  acquired  hf 
unlawfurmeans.  .  Tlie  law  in  botli  its  negative  and  positive  opera- 
tion simply  throws  the  case  out  of  Court,  and  leaves  the  paynaejit 
,to  the  judgement  aod  conscience  of  the  party,  who  contracted  the 
obligation.  It  is  a  case  similar  in  principle  to  that  of  many  others 
in  which  the  decisions  of  the  civil  law  are  not  and  were  never  in- 
tended to  bo  the  rule  of  private  morality.  In  many  instanoes,  as 
for  example,  under  the  statute  of  limitations,  in  debts  of  honor,  in 
cases  where  claims  have  failed  from  loss  of  papers,  informalities, 
want  of  testimony  and  other  similar  causes,  the  decisions  of  the  law 
whether  negative  or  positive,  are  not,  and  were  not  ureant  to  be,  iu 
accordance  with  the  claimr,  of  private  morality. 

However  the  law  of  duress  may  be  explained  or  justified,  the 
question  of  private  morality  certainly  remains  unaffected.  And  in 
this  latter  view,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  exi)ress  the  opinion,  that  he 
who  assumes  an  obligation  uuder  duress  is  morally  bound  to  fulfill 
it.  And  tiiis  for  two  reasons  :  first  and  chiefly,  because  of  the  gen- 
eral obligations  of  truth  and  honor,  and  second,  because. of  the  fact 
that  he  did  receive  a  valuable  consideration,  which,  however  repu- 
diated by  the  public  law,  was  wne  which  he  at  the  time  considered 
an  equivalent,  and  which  really  was  to  him  a  great  bion,  viz:  his 
liberty  or  his  life. 

Y.  The  discussion  of  this  point,  however,  is  gratuitous,  and  might 
have  been  waived  as  irrelevant.  It  belongs  to  a  difierent  and  lower 
(lepartment  of  morals.  It  is  a  question  of  promise  which  belongs 
to  tije  'Jth  eommandment,  and  is  a  part  of  the  second  table  of  tho 
divine  law,  which  treats  of  the  relative  duties  of  man  to  man; — 
whilst  the  subject  of  oaths  comes  under  the  3rd  commandment  or 
the  first  table,  whiph  embodies  our  duties  to  God  directly.  And 
whilst  ihe  Supreme  I^uler  demands  tho  faithful  discharge  of  our  ter- 


restrliil  iluti^s,  tlie  direct  ol»lIg;\tipns  lo  liimsolf  are  dirter^wtia  their 
nature,  nnd  are  held  to  be  thfe  most  sA'-red,  weighty  and  iriTiolable. 
This  distinction  is  recognized  in  tho  civil  law  in'  the  wide  differ- 
ence that  U  inado  between  a  man's  vow,  and  his  oath.  The  simple 
■n-ord  of  the  bt-st  citizen  will  not  be  received  in  Court:  he  mnst  be 
put  on  his  oiith.  Tiie  meaning  of  which  is.  that  the  obligations  of 
truth  are  not  regarded  as  possessing  the  same  weight  and  authority 
as  the  obligations  of  Religion.  Ilenco  perjury  is  "regarded  both  in 
the  law  and  by  the  common  .sentiment  of  mankind,  as  one  of  the 
most  degrading  and  destructive  of  all  crimes,  whilst  simple  false- 
hood, low  and  wicked  as  it  is,  passes  com])arativeIy  unnoticed. 

The  civil  law  gives  no  countenance  to  the  idea  that  oaths  taken 
under  duress  arc  not  binding,  for  all  testimony  is  given  under  im- 
plied duress.  It  is  not  optional  with  a  witness  whether  or  not  ho 
will  appear  and  testify.  He  mnut  testify  or  be  imprisoned.  Here 
js  duress;  but  does  tiie  law  release  him  from  the  obligations  of  Jiis 
.i+ath,  because  he  takes  it  only  to  avoid  going  to  jail  ?  No.  He  is 
jield  to  his  oath  ;  and  if  he  swears  falsely,  he  is\isited  with  con- 
dign punishment !  Hero  then  we  find  the  real  sentiment  of  the  law 
with  regard  to  the  binding  authority  of  the  oath  of  God.  The  fact 
that  in  this  case  the  duress  itself  is  lawful,  and  in  the  other  case  un- 
lawful, affords  a  justification  for  the  enforcement  of  the  obligation  by 
Jegal  means  in  the  one  case  and  for  its  non-enforcement  in  the  ether: 
but  it  does  not  affect  the  soundness  of  the  position  that  in  the  very 
heart  of  th«  law  wo  find  the  principle  acknowledged,  that  the  fact 
pf  duress,  does  not  in  itself  considered,  invalidate  the  obligation  of 
an  oath. 

8.  A  doubt  as  to  the  universality  of  this  doctrine  is  sometimes  sug- 
gested by  the  fact,  that  there  are  exceptions,  or  apparent  exceptions, 
to  some  of  the  commandments  of  the  Decalogue,  and  why  not  to 
Ihis?  The  answer  to  this  is,  that  there  are  no  reel  exceptions  to  any  of 
the  commandments  of  God.  The  cases  which  seem  to  be  exceptions 
are  cases  in  which  the  law  was  not  meant  to  apply.  For  example, 
the  command  "Thou  shalt  not  kill"  was  not  meant  to  cover  the  ca- 
ses of  taking  life  in  self-defence  and  by  civil  government,  as  we  know 
from  Beriptuve,  as  well  as  from  ihe  nature  of  the  case.  In  the  in- 
spired commentaries  of  Moses  and  elsewhere,  the  taking  of  life  for 
.crime  and  in  war  is  expressly  provided  for ;  as  is  also  the  case  with 
regard  to  the  commandments  affecting  the  rights  of  property.  The 
command  '"Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness,"  although  belonging  to 
human  relations  and  running  through  all  these  relations,  is  left  by 
the  scripture  in  its  naked  and  unabated  force ;  and  the  ablest  mor- 
alists deny  that  it  is  subject  to  any  qualification  whatever.  The  law 
of  the  Sabbath  is  classed  with  the  first  table,  and  certainly  has  a 
sacredness  higner  than  belongs  to  the  precepts  of  the  second  table ; 
but  it  really  partalce^  of  the  nature  of  both.  And  the  true  princi- 
ple of  its  application  is  given  by  our  Saviour  in  the  words— "The 
Sabbath  was  made  for  mm,  not  man  for  the  Sabbath."  But  with 
the  first  three  commandments  \s  directly  involved  the  honor  of  God: 
and  his  honor  he  can  never  hoM  in  abeyance,  or  his  glory  give  to 
another! 

The  oath  combines  in  itself  all  the  authority  of  both  tables  of  the 
law ;  for  the  sanctions  of  the  3rd  are  superadded  to  the  obligations 
of  the  9th  commandment :  but  its  peculiar  and  distinguishing  au- 
thority, arises  from  the  fact  of  its  being  an  obligation  assumed  to 
the  Almighty  himself,  and  if  a^igumed  deceitfnllv,  ©r  Tiolated  after 


heiHg  aJ^Sli!rt^ci,  ex;'spt  under  its  im[)li(iU  lilhitations,  is  cithor  ft  di- 
rect iasblL  to  the  dignity  t»f  the  Supreme  Being>  or  a  'Dreacii  ot'laitb 
of  the  highest  possible  aggravation  ;  tlie  commUsion  of  which  evin- 
ces a  most  inadequate  couceptiou  of  tUehondr  and  fealty  duo  to  the 
King  of  Kin?s.  Annanias  and  Sappliira  were  struck  dead  because 
th©y  '-lied  not  unto  men,  but  unto  tha  Holy  Ghost."  And  tlic  ex- 
amples of  Siuion  Magus,  U;izah,  Nadab  and  Abihu,  and  Uzziah, 
teach  U3  profound  lessons  of  the  jealoa»y  of  God  with  regard  to 
his  honor,  and  the  sincerity,  huujility.  awe  and  revereneo  which 
ought  ever  to  cliaracterize  our  approaches  to  Him,  and  our  us©  of 
his  holy  and  reverend  name. 

Let  us  now  bring  these  principles  to  bear  upon  Oaths  of  -^yiegi- 
ance  in  general,  and  the  oath  of  allegiauoo  to  the  United  Slates  in 
particular- 
Oaths  of  allegiance  afe  subject  to  tho  samo  moral  ruk."*,  which 
govern  oaths  in  general :  and  they  arc  to  be  taken  or  refused  on  tho 
same  principles.  They  cannot  be  lawfully  taken,  where  they  bind 
one  to  do  or  to  sanction  that  which  is  wrong  or  believed  to  be  wrong. 
If  taken,  \i  must  be  done,  reverently,  honestly,  without  mental  res- 
ervation aUd  secAindum  auimnm  imponentis.  The  i  mi  poser  is  the  State, 
or  Government,  to  which  the  oath  is  taken;  and  whatever  is  the 
mind  of  the  imposer  quoad  hoc,  that  is,  whatever^  is  the  meaning  or 
interpretation  put  upon  the  oath  of  allegiance  by  the  State  or  Gov- 
ernment imposing  it,  is  the  thing  sworn  to  by  him  who  takes  it. — 
Tiiis  is  a  universally  admitted  principle. 

The  oath  of  allegiance  however,  should  be  carefully  distinguish- 
ed from  tho  military  parole,  and  from  promises  or  even  oaths  of 
neutrality  during  the  pendency  of  a  war,  or  during  the  occupation 
of  the  country  by  the  enemy.  Such  premises,  if  taken,  are  of  course 
binding;  but  they  are  temporary  in  their  duration  and  negative  in 
their  signiticance,  requiring  only  an  abstinence  from  active  opposi- 
tion tor  A  specified  timei  Where  it  is  simply  the  parole  of  a  prison- 
er of  war  hot  to  bear  arms  until  exchanged,  or  the  promise  of  a  cit- 
izen not  to  engage  in  any  hostile  act  or  movement  during  occupan- 
cy, there  is  no  impropriety  in  its  being  required  by  the  enemy,  or 
given  by  the  soldier  or  citizen. 

But  the  oath  of  allegiance  is  a  transaction  of  far  higher  moment, 
and  more  comprehensive  significance.  Allegiance  is  the  loyalty  and 
obedience  due  from  a  citizen  to  his  prince  or  country.  And  the  oath 
of  allegiance  includes,  first  a  renunciation  of  all  other  claims  upoa 
his  loyalty  and  obedience  from  any  prince,  potentate,  state,  govern- 
ment, or  country  whatsoever,  and  second,  a  promise  of  fi<ielity  in 
the  new  political  relation,  and  an  implied  assumption  of  all  the 
obligations  of  good  citizenship  under  the  constitution  and  laws  of 
the  country.  The  particular  duties  implied  by  the  oath  of  allegiance, 
of  course,  vary  in  different  countries,  and  in  the  same  country  in 
different  periods  of  its  history.  Even  whilst  the  language  of  the 
constitution,  and  tho  terms  of  the  oath  remain  tho  same,  there  are 
changes  of  interpretation  and  practice,  which  so  modify  the  mean- 
ing of  the  oath,  that  a  man  who  could  in  good  conscience  have  ta- 
ken it  at  one  time,  cannot  honestly  take  it  at  another:  for  he  i«  not 
at  liberty  to  put  his  owr  interpretation  upon  the  constitution  or  tho 
meaning  of  the  oath  :  he  must  swear  secundxtm animum  imponentU, 
Whatever  has  been  determined  by  the  Supreme  authorities  to  be 
the  meaning  of  the  censtitution  and  of  the  oath  of  allegiaDce  is  the 
thing  ^hich  is  sworn  by  Mim  who  takes  the  oath. 


Let  lis  now  roi'er  as  nu  apposite  example  to 

Tilt  OATH  OF  ALLEGIANCE  TO  THE  UNltED  STATES. 

We  fill aH  first  consider  it  in  its  itieaning  previous  to  the  disrup- 
tion of  the  Gorermnent.  Every  native  born  citizen  by  remaining 
in  the  Country  nGcepted  the  obligations  bf  citizenship,  which  were 
none  the  less  binding!:  on  him,  because  he  liad  not  taken  a  formal 
oath  of  allegiance.  When  a  citizen  wa*  inducted  into  office,  he  took 
a,  formal  oath  to  support  and  defehd  the  constitution,  and  when  a 
foreigner  was  invt'stcd  with  citi^^hship,  he  took  a  similar  oath  with 
an  additional  clause  renouncing  all  foreign  allegiance. 

Let.  u«  now  inquire  r^hat  was  not  implied,  and  what  was  implied 
by  tHH  oiathi  ." 

n.  It  did  hot  irtiply  a  renunciation  of  allegiance  to  the  particular 
State  in  the  Union  to  which  the  person  belonged.  Whatever  sov- 
rcigntj  the  sevet*al  States  might  be  entitled  to  under  the  federal 
compact,  be  the  same  more  Or  less,  that  degree  of  sovreignty  over 
liim  was  understood  by  both  parties  to  be  reserved. 

%  It  did  not  imply  a  sar-ction  of  all  future  legislative  and  adrain- 
istrative  acts.  In  case  service*  werV  required  of  him  by  futnre' 
enactment,  which  he  believed  to  be  morally  wrong,  he  would  bo 
just  in  the  situation  of  the  native  boi'n  citizen,  who  is  c«»mpellod  by 
religious  duty  to  obey  God  rather  than  man,  and  hence  passively 
submit  t«  the  penalty  of  disobedience  to  the  human  law,  when  it 
reqUii'es  him  to  commit  sin. 

C;  It  did  not  imply  a  renunciation  of  the  ric/ht  df  revolution.  J  or 
the  L^'nited  Slates  had  commenced  independent  existence  by  declar- 
ing to  the  nVorld  that  whenever  any  goternment  becomes  destructive 
of  the  ends  of  its  creation,  *'it  is  the  right  of  thepeopl*  to  alter,  or 
to  ybolifth  it,  and  to  institute  a  new  government,  faying  its  founda- 
tion on  such  principles,  and  oi^ganizing  its  powei*s  in  snch  form,  as 
to  them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect  their  safety  and  happiness." 

Hence  should  a  justly  founded  revolution  arise  at  any  time,  it 
could  not  be  charged  that  those  who  participated  in  the  revolution 
were  guilty  of  perjury;  for  the  government  admmistering  the  oath 
of  allegiaiice  allowed  that  very  reservation. 

But  oh  the  other  hand,  the  oath  did  imply  that  the  citizen  taking 
it  accepted  and  submitted  to  the  constitution  and  the  laws  existing 
imder  the  sanctions  of  the  supreme  court,  and  to  the  entire  govern- 
ment of  the  country  as  then  administered,  and  that  he  was  prepar- 
ed to  assnm«  all  the  obligations  and  to  discharge  all  the  duties  be- 
longing to'  faithful  citizenship.  It  also  implied  that  he  had  no  pres- 
ent intention,  arid  saw  no  present  ground,  for  engaging  in  a  revolu- 
tion fot*  the  Overthrow  of  the  government.  Moreover,  that  there 
was  nothing  in  the  constitution  which  he  regarded  as  immoral,  and 
no  duty  required  of  a  citizen,  which  lie  could  not  conscientiously 
perfoim.  If  the  person  could  honestly  agree  to  all  this,  then  he 
might  with  a  good  conscience  take  the  oath  ;  if  he*  could  riot,  then 
he  was  bound  to  follow  t^ie  example  of  Wendell  Philips  and  other 
foreign  abolitionists,  arid  of  foreign  non-resistants,  who  immigrated 
to  the  U.  S. ;  the  fol-mer  of  Whom  tefused  to  take  the  oath  of  alle- 
giance because  the  constitutiorl  and  laws  protected  slavery,  and  the 
latter,  because  they  could  not  sancticfn  the  doctrine  of  war  or  agree 
to  bear  arras^  if  called  upon  to  do  so.  In  so  doing,  whatever  were 
their  errors,  they  acted  consistently  with  their  principles,  and  did 
only  what  every  man  was  bound  to  do,  Tvho  <;ould  not  honestjy 
assume  the  full  chilics  of  citizenship,  f 


u 

\Kj6  Qeit  l>a!i3  10  ihit  import  «f  tfea  U.  S.  oath  of  allegidnoe,  as  it 
"ts  now  pressed  upon  the  citizens  of  the  Confederato  Stttaa.  In 
8ome  cases  the  languacjoot  the  oatli  itself  embodies  its  full  meaning. 
In  most  iQstiincQs  the  simple  oath  to  snpport  the  constitution  of  the 
tJ.  S.  is  tendered.  i>at  no  matter  what  be  the  form,  the  meaning  is 
always  the  same.  It  includes  all  now  tlaat  it  included  formerly, 
with"  the  vital  addition  of  the  whole  question  between  the  two 
governments.  Hence  it  i^^  their  party  test,  their  Shibboleth,  their 
battle-llag,  their  sucramentum,  by  means  of  whick  they  would  re- 
v^ulre  us  to  desert  our  cau^e  and  espouse  theirs  I    ' 

Suppressing^  our  feelings  of  indignation,  let  us  contiaue  to  inves- 
tigate the  question  of  dury  with  the  calmness  of  re.en  whose  first 
desire  is  to  settle  th«ir  minds  upon  the  solid  foundations  of  Christian 
tnorality.  The  question  as  to  the  ]>ropriet}  of  taking  this  oath  under 
any  circumstances,  which  have  arisen  or  can  arise  during  the  present 
war,  is  one  on  which  every  mind  ought  to  bo  clearly  settled,  as  it  it 
one  of  the  great  practical  question*  of  the  time,  and  one  in  which 
thd  honor  of  the  Omnipotent  God,  individual  integrity,  national 
reputation,  and  the  success  of  our  arms,  are  all  vitally  involved. — 
The  general  principles  on  the  subject  of  oaths,  and  the  import  of 
oaths  of  allegiance,  which  have  been  passed  in  review,  ought  to 
make  the  .solutm^  of  this  question  short  and  easy,  certainly  to  those 
who  consider  their  allegiance  justly  due  to  the  Confederate  States. 
In  making  a  practical  application  of  these  principles,  it  will  be> 
necessary  to  use  a  freedom  of  illustration  and  argument  in  referring 
to  the  state  of  public  affairs,  which  would  ordinarily  be  unbecoming 
to  the  pulpit,  and  which  can  be  justified  dhly  in  cases  like  the 
pretsent,  where  the  claims  of  moral  and  political  duty  are  so  iudis- 
aulubly  connected,  that  they  cannot  be  considered  apart. 

The  citizen  is  called  upon  to  decide  whether  h©  ought  under  any 
circumstances  during  the  pendency  of  the  war  to  take  the  oath  of 
allegiance  to  the  United  titates.  Tie  cannot  come  to  an  intelligent 
decision  without  having  clearly  placed  before  his  mind  the  exact 
nature  of  the  obligation,  which  he  assumes.  Let  us  then  consider 
the  taking  of  this  oath,  tirst,  apart  frwm  otir  duty  to  our  own  gov- 
ernment. Supposing  that  we  w«re  cosmopolites,  owing  allegiance 
to  HO  government,  and  were  landed  in  the  city  of  New  York,  with 
all  the  knowledge  we  have  at  present  concerning  the  United  States 
as  a  nation  and  a  governttent,  its  pre^^ent  degradation  as  compared 
with  its  former  glory,  its  noble  constitution  practically  abolished,  its 
govurnfneut  reckless  and  tyrannical,  its  treatment  of  the  Sourli  bar- 
barous beyond  anything  known  in  modern  history,  among  civilized 
rations,  its  niwde  of  warfare  worthy  only  of  the  dark  ages,  its  Chris- 
tianity perverted  into  a  religion  breathing  rather  the  spirit  of  Moloch 
than  of  Jesus,  and  its  future  purposes  toward  the  South  unprinci- 
pled and  merciless.  With  such  knowledge  as  we  have,  and  such 
sentiments  as  we  hold,  concerning  that  government  in  its  present 
degenerate  condition,  could  we,  as  a  rnero  independent  question, 
with  a  good  conscience  in  the  sight  of  God,  swear  allegiance  to  it? 
thus  paying  it  the  highest  compliment  of  which  we  are  oapaUe, 
thus  in  a  manner  endorsing  its  detestable  character,  thus  becoming 
an  integral  part  of  a  nation  whose  crimes  smell  to  heaven,  and 
by  the  very  act,  devoting  o«r  influence,  fortune,  and  life  itself, 
to  tlie  snpport  and  defence,  not  simply  of  an  almost  imaginary  con- 
stitution, but  of  this  whole  system  of  horrible  wickedness.  No, 
no,  wo  could  notj  thus  vicwiHg  the  facts  of  the  case,  become  par- 


15 

takei-f)  of  Bftch  •rimes,  without  fenrful  gailt  in  ttit  »iflit  *f  God.  It 
irould  not  be  vrith  us  us  it  is  "with  mattj  oitizcas  of  th«  United 
States,  who  stand  aloof  and  view  with  liorror  the  wreck  and  the 
crimes  of  tlieir  govcrnnient.  The  new  ciiizen,'as  he  comes  in,  takes 
the  governinent  as  he  finds  it,  and  swears  allegiance  to  the  consti- 
tntion  as  interpreted  and  administered  at  the  time. 

But  to  us  this  is  onlj  half  the  question.  We  are  not  left  to 
consider  it  in  its  abstract  form.  We,  the  people  of  the  Confederate 
{States  have  done  as  our  fathers  did  on  a  wider  scale — set  up  a  now 
GoYernment,  as  we  had  a  right  to  do.  This  Government  is  ac- 
knowledged by  all  loyal  men  to  be  valid,  and  to  be  to  us  the  ordl^ 
nance  of  God — "the  powers  that  be" — to  which  we  owe  true  and 
faithful  allegiance.  Tor  the  doing  of  this,  the  United  States  have 
waged  war  upon  us.  Tkey  dony  the  validity  of  our  government, 
they  say  that  it  is  no  proper  Government,  but  a  traitorous  league. 
They  declare  their  purpose  to  destroy  it,  and  to  reduce  us  to  abject 
submission.  And  for  three  years  they  have  with  fire  and  sword 
been  striving  for  their  end.  Their  plan  is  to  conquer  the  people  as 
they  go.  When  they  gain  a  footing  in  any  section  of  th«  country, 
they  offer  the  oath  as  a  party  test,  and  call  upon  our  people  to  de- 
cide the  groat  question  of  the  war  in  their  favor.  They  call  upon 
Tis  to  declare  ia  substance  under  the  tremendous  sanctions  of  the 
oath,  that  wo  owe  no  allt^giance  to  the  Confederaff^  Government, 
that  it  is  not  the  proper  Government  of  the  country,  that  it  is  no 
Government  at  all,  but  a  diabolical  league  which  ouglit  to  be  utter- 
ly destroyed.  And  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  claims  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  are  just,  that  it  is  the  true  and  proper  government  of  the 
country,  and  that  we  hereby  assume  all  the  obligations  of  citizen- 
whip,  which  includes  a  devotement  of  all  that  wo  have  and  are  to 
their  service.  In  other  words,  that  so  far  as  we  can  aid  in  ending 
the  war  in  favor  of  th«  United  States  and  against  the  Confederate 
States,  we  arc  prepared  to  do  it;  that  onr  struggle  for  the  Southern 
cause  is  over,  and  that  we  are  not  subjugated  simply,  but  converted., 
turned  from  having  been  enemies  into  friends,  loyal  citizens,  sup- 
porters and  helpers.  And  in  the  case  of  Virginians  and  others 
within  whose  limits  have  been  set  up  new  and  spurious  State  gov- 
ernments, the  oath  includes  a  renunciation  of  the  original  and  proper 
State  government,  and  an  acceptance  and  endorsement  of  the  new. 

Now  it  matters  not  whether  all  this  be  expressed  in  the  terms  of 
the  proffered  oath,  as  it  sometimes  is  in  substance,  or  whether  tho 
]>lain  old  form  be  used,  it  is  all  inthemindoftheimposer^  and  there- 
fore it  is  all  sworn  to  by  him  who  takes  the  oath.  If  nothing  wioro 
than  neutrality  was  meant,  only  a  promise  or  oath  of  neutrality 
would  bo  required  :  but  the  tender  of  the  oath  of  allegiance^  when 
the  question  of  allegiance  is  the  very  gravamen  of  tne  war,  can 
mean  nothing  but  a  demand  for  the  surrender  of  the  whole  South- 
ern cause,  and  a  full  espousal  of  their  claims  and  an  endorsement  of 
their  course. 

To  state  the  case  is  to  decide  it  for  every  true  Southerner.  The 
nature,  the  solemnity  and  the  binding  authority  of  the  oath,  and 
the  true  meaning  of  this  oath  which  is  presented  for  our  acceptance, 
being  brought  clearly  before  the  mind,  the  moral  instincts  of  every 
true  patriot  decide  in  a  moment  that  the  taking  of  the  oath  is  not 
only  unpatriotic  in  the  extreme,  but  for  him,  would  be  ipio  facto 
an  Rot  of  perjnry. 

Such  is  uidewiaWy  the  ipoftttneo^p,  iBsMnctire  decision  of  tbe 


])atriotIo  mliid,  aad  yet  inea  of  cbargcUr  aocl  patriotlsBi  arc  !•  be 
found,  -vv'ho  atringely  enough  parry  tho  force  of  theso  natire,  nn- 
corrupted  moral  instincts,  and  find  apologies  foe  puebing  them 
as^idc,  and  allowing  the  citixeu  to  accept  of  the  oath  under  ocrtaia 
circumstances.  We  must  givo  somo  attention  to  these  apologies, 
although  the  established  principles  which  have  already  been  passe(i 
in  review  before  us  embody  substantially  answers  to  thorn  all. 

It  has  been  said,  for  example,  that  the  government  occupying  any 
section  ot  tho  country,  becomes  to  the  inhabitants  thereof  ''th© 
powers  that  be,"  to  which  tho  Scriptures  require  subjection.  All 
force  in  this  objection  quickly  disappears,  when  we  rocellcot,  first, 
that  no  liuman  government  is  to  be  obeyed,  when  it  requires  us  to 
do  or  to  sanction  that  which  is  wrong  (See  Acts  5  :  28,  29.;;  second, 
thot  the  acknowledged  American  doctrine  on  this  subject  is,  that 
"tho  i)0wer3  that  bo,"  in  the  lawful  sense,  are  the  authorities  or 
government,  created  and  sanctioned  by  tho  people  themselves; 
third,  that  the  war  is  waging  for  the  protection  of  tho  entire  people  ; 
and  finally,  that  all  ideas  of  government  would  be  thrown  into 
confusion,  if  tho  military  occupation  of  a  section  of  conntry  by  a 
public  enemy  during  a  war  of  invasion,  absolved  the  inhabitants  of 
that  section  from  their  allegiance  to  their  own  government. 

If  a  country  were  completely  conquered,  its  government  «rer- 
thrown,  and  all  hope  of  successful  resistance  extinguished,  then  the 
rictorious  government  becomes  "tihe  powers  that  bo,"  to  which  the 
remaining  iuhnbitauts  owe  subjection,  as  was  tho  oa^e  with  tho 
Israelites  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour,  their  government  having  been 
destroyed,  and  the  Roman  government  exercising  unquestioned 
dominion  over  the  country.  But  even  in  such  a  case  it  would  not 
follow  that  the  duty  of  subjection  included  the  duty  of  taking  the 
oath  of  allegiance,  which  is  a  difteront  thing,  and  tho  propriety  of 
wliich  would  depend  on  the  animus  imponentis.  If  tho  proffered. 
oath  Avas  designed  by  tho  imposer  to  refer  only  to  future  obedience, 
and  required  in  the  duties  of  that  obedience  nothing  sinful,  then  it 
might  be  honestly  taken,  But  if  it  included  an  endorsement  ot  past 
injustice,  Christian  morality  would  forbid  its  acceptance. 

But  this  is  not  the  ((uestion  we  are  called  to  deci^j3.  Wo  have  a 
living  government,  which  we  have  established,  and  -whose  validity 
we  aeknowledgo.  This  fovernment  is  the  ordinance  of  God  to  us, 
to  which  we  are  bound  to  adhere  ia  its  adversity  as  well  as  in  it» 
prosperity,  anxl  to  which  we  are  bound  to  render  our  moral  support, 
even  in  the  presence  of  its  enemies,  and  when  no  longer  able  to 
render  it  material  aid. 

Apologies  have  been  made  for  taking  the  U.  S.  oath  in  considera- 
tion of  the  sufferings  of  our  peeple  within  tho  enemy's  lines.  Our 
sympathy  with  eur  distressed  brethren,  and  the  knowledge  which 
every  man  has  of  his  Awn  frailties,  may  well  incline  us  to  charitable 
judgments:  but  to  allow  of  this  oath  merely  as  an  escape  frora 
sutlering  is  not  only  to  elevate  the  temporal  above  the  eternal,  and 
to  give  preference  to  bodily  comfort  ever  sound  principle,  good  con- 
science, good  citizenship  and  tho  lawful  authority  of  God:  but  it  i& 
to  admit  a  principle,  which  would  annihilate  all  moral  obligatioo, 
and  cast  contempt  on  tho  patient  endurance  of  suffering  virtue  io 
all  ages  of  the  world.  T  he  great  Captain  of  our  salvation  was  mado 
perfect  through  suflforing  ;  and  frora  before  the  days  of  Daniel,  the 
prophet,  until  now,  men  in  all  forms  »f  government,  have  been 
tempted  to  abandon  tlieir  principles   by  meaas  of  P(?rsecution  in 


:i4 

some  form ;  some  ]iav«  ignomlnioHsly  Tieldei],  otiaors  liavd  borne  a 
consistent  testimony  in  spite  of  their  sutferingg.  Need  tt  be  nykcd 
which  olass  is  the  more  honorable?  Surely  in  this  onligliteneAap:© 
and  in  thisenliglitened  land,  it  is  not  necessary  still  to  argue,  wbeth- 
er  a  man's  principles  ought  to  be  abandoned,  as  soon'as  they  inrolvo 
pergonal  sacrifice.     The  case  is  too  plain  for  serious  argument. 

But,  as  w^s  intimated  in  a  former  part  of  this  discourse,  it  i»  c3e- 
clared  in  some  respectable  quarters,  that  an  oath  taken  under  such 
circumstances  i^  not  binding.  This  point  has  already  been  argued 
in  its  J»ain  feature.  Bui  let  us  look  at  it  a  little  more  closely.  Tbe 
taking  of  the  oath  iS  either  a  hona  fide  transaction,  or  it  is  not.  If 
it  is,  its  binding  obligation  of  course  follows.  If  it  is  no-t,  then  it 
is  a  mere  form  of  words  used,  where  there  is  no  corresponc^iijij  feel- 
ing or  purpose,  in  the  mind  of  him  who  takes  it.  Whether  the  sub- 
sequent violation  of  such  an  oath  be  perjury  or  not,  this  mach  may 
be  said  without  controversy,  that  he  who  takes  such  ani  oath  is 
guilty  of  the  sin  of  profanity  ;  and  this  is  as  clear,  though  not  as 
aggravated,  a  violation  of  the  Srd  Commandment  a*  perjury.  It  is 
using  the  name  of  God  deceitfully,  which  is  one  mode  of  taking 
his  name  in  vain.  Now  what  moral  right  has  a  man  to  shield  him- 
self by  profanity  any  more  than  by  ])erjury  1  The  Apostle  Peter, 
saved  himself  from  the  perils  ot  threatened  duiresg  by  profane  curs- 
ing, and  swearing  that  he  knew  not  tne  man  Jesius  Christ;  but  he 
was  never  applauded  for  his  course,  and  his  bitter  weeping  testified 
to  his  self-condemnation.  Archbishop  Cranmer,  in  the  hope  ot  sav- 
ing liim«eif  from  the  stake  to  which  he  had  been  condemned,  sign- 
ed a  hypocritical  abjnration  of  his  sentiments,  but  it  has  always 
be«n  considered  a  foul  blot  upon  an  otherwise  noble  name,  and  he 
himself  when  finally  brought  to  the  stake  which  he  had  thus  sought 
to  avoid,  first  thrust  his  right  hand  into  the  fiajn®,  and  there  un- 
flinchingly held  it  until  it  was  wholly  consuwied,  bitterly  exclaiming 
all  the  while,  "oh  thou  offending  memb«r  ;  thou  olfcndiKg  memb&r." 
And  thus  should  it  be  with  those  who  deny  their  country,  and 
do  \%  by  a  profane  use  of  the  solemn  oath  of  God.  And  instead  of 
seeking  to  justify  their  course,  they  should  like  Peter  and  Cranmer, 
be  smitten  with  an  agony  of  penitential  sorrow. 

But  we  insiSTjthat  such  an  ©ath,  although  profane  in  spirit,  is  still 
Talid  and  authoritative.  For  it  is  univerbally  admitted  among 
sound  moralists,  that  deceit  or  mental  reservation  in  any  form,  does 
not  affect  the  validity  of  the  oath,  any  more  than  a  sncretpurposo 
to  avoid  payment  affects  the  validity  of  a  bond.  The  force  of  the 
transaction  lies  in  the  external  act.  And  there  are  no  exceptions 
to  its  binding  authority  when  once  uttered,  except  the  natural  lim.- 
itations  heretofore  mentioned  of  possibility  and  morality.  A  loyal' 
"citizen  of  the  Confederate  States  who  has  unhappily  taken  the  oath 
of  allegiance  to  the  United  Stales,  is  not  bound  to  keep  it,  because,, 
'and  only  because  it  binds  him  to  sin,  and  was  therefore  null  and 
■void  from  the  moment  it  was  taken.  His  duty  is  not  that  of  obe- 
dieuce  to  the  sinful  promise  he  has  sworn  to  keep,  but  of  deep  re- 
pentance for  having  made  it,  and  apublic  renunciation  of  thesame„ 
"Were,  however,  the  subject-matter  of  the  oath  free  from  moral  ob- 
jection, and  within  the  range  of  ability,  its  validity  would  nothavo 
been  impaired  by  the  fact  that  it  was  taken  under  duress.  The  dis- 
cussion of  this  point  is  important  as  a  question  of  morals  belonging^ 
to  the  subject  at  large,  but  it- might  have  been  whidly  dispensed 
with  in  this  conneation:  for  tho  circumstances  undei"  which  the  V^ 


^.  oath  IS  Gdnunonlj  teutlored  do  not  constitute  a  case  of  dureis. — 
In  most  cases  there' i»  do  jeopardy  of  life  or  limb,  or  even  threat  ot 
iraprisonnient — but  only  exposure  to  pecuniary  damage,  to  disagree- 
able treatment,  and  to  difficulties  in  securini^  the  means  of  sub»is- 
teuce — not  to  giturvfttion  ;  for  rations  are  issned  to  those  who  are 
in  ^vant,  because,  and  we  are  justified  in  flaying,  only  because  tUo 
already  sutliciently  taxed  patience  of  the  civilized  world  would  not 
bear  the  iniliction  of  actual  starvation  upon  non-combatants.  But 
even  if  the  oath  were  taken  under  duress,  it  would  be  none  the  less 
binding,  as  is  generally  agreed  among  stand.ird  moralists,  both  an- 
cient and  modern,  both  heathen  and  christian.  Plutarch  say?,  ''He 
that  deceiveth  an  enemy  by  art  oath  doth  confess  that  hefeareth  his 
enemy  and  denpiseth  God.'^'  Aristotle  says,  "Ho  that  will  extenuate 
an  oath,  mu»t  say  that  those  villainous  wretches  that  think  God 
seeth  not,  do  think  also  to  go  away  with  their  purjnry  unpunished." 
And  for  a  people  in  ancient  times  to  allow  of  deceitful  oatiis  was  to 
bring  upon  themselves  the  odious  stigma  ''Jides  punlca,'''  which  was 
a  brand  of  the  g:reatest  infamy,  and  like  the  "Lord  have  mercy  on 
us"  written  over  the  doors,  was  a  sign  of  a  destroying  plague  within. 

And  such  is  the  doctrino  of  all  except  the  loosest  casuists  ©f 
modern  times.  In  its  ultimate  analysis,  it  is  simply  a  question  such 
as  has  been  presented  for  practical  solution  to  theiuthers,  and  Sid- 
neys j»nd  Baxters,  and  Ham])dens  in  all  ages — a  question  of  supremacy 
between  principle  and  personal  case,  courage  and  cowardice,  God> 
law  and  man's  tyranny  !  And  whatever  be  the  apologies  suggested 
by  hun)an  weakuess,  the  impartial  judgment  of  mankind  has  ever 
coincided  with  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  that  deceit  \»  a  despicable 
vice,  and  that  integrity  is  always  demanded,  especially  in  solemn 
religious  transf  ctions.  , ,.; 

There  is  an  example  recorded  in  the  Scriptfires  which  settles  this 
question  as  to  the  binding  authority  of  oaths  of  allegiance  even 
when  taken  under  duress.  The  narrative  is  to  be  ff)und  in  King* 
and  in  Ezeklel.  During  the  reign  of  Jehoachin,  Kingof  Jndah,  Neb- 
uchadnezzer,  King  of  Babylon,  conquered  the  land  of  Judea  and 
carried  into  captivity  the  King  and  his  household,  tlie  princes,  and 
all  the  mighty  men  of  valor,  even  10,000  captives,  and  all  the  crafts- 
men and  smiths  :  none  remained  save  the  poorest  sort  of  people  of 
the  land. 

He,  however,  placed  upon  the  Jewish  throne  Zedekiah,  an  uncle  to 
the  captive  King,  requiring  him  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  him. 
It  is  fcaid  in  Chronicles  that  Xobuchadnezzer  "-made  him  swear  by 
God,"  an  expression  taken  in  connection  with  all  thecircumstancea 
showing  that  it  was  a  strong  case  of  duress.  Jt  was  no  doubt  right 
for  Zedekiah  to  take  this  oath  and  to  assume  the  governmtnt,  as^ 
tho  best  alternative  left  fc^ff.himself  and  the  miserable  remnant  of 
his  fellow-cowntrymcn. 

Some  years  however  afterwards  without  provocation,  so  far  a» 
we  kHow,  be  applied  for  and  received  aid  from  the  King  of  Egypt 
to  engage  in  a  revolt  against  the  King  of  Babylon  :  a  movement; 
which  ended  most  disastrou>^ly  for  himself  and  his  people.  The 
prophet  Ezekiel  was  in  Babylon  when  the  news  of  Zedekiah's  re- 
volt arrrived.  Then  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  him  ir  the  fol- 
lowing pointed  and  impressive  termii:  "Say  now  to  the  rebelliona 
^ouse.  Know  ye  not  what  these  things  mean  ?  Tell  them,  Behold, 
the  King  of  Dtibylon  is  come  to  Jernsalem,  and  hath  taken  the  King 
thereof,  and  th«  princes  thereof,  and  led  them  with  hinvttx  Babylon  ■ 


:i8 

And  liatli  takftn  of  tko  King'i  ited,  (riz,  Zedokiah)  «ml  hath  made 
a  covenant  with  him,  and  hath  taken  an  oath  of  him  ;  he  hath  also< 
taken  the  nnighty  of  the  land.  That  the  Kingdom  might  bo  base, 
that  it  might  not  lift  itself  up,  but  that  by  keeping  of  his  eovenanti 
it  might  stand.  But  he  rebelled  against  him  in  sending  hiii  ambas- 
ladors  into  Egypt,  that  they  might  give  hitn  horses  and  much  peo- 
ple. Shall  he  prosper?  Shall  he  eso?.pe  that  do«th  such  things? 
or  shall  he  break  the  covenant,  and  be  delivered  i  As  I  live,  saith 
the  Lord,  surely  in  the  place  where  the  King  dwelleth  that  made 
him  King,  whose  oath  lie  despised  and  whoso  covenant  he  brake^ 
«ven  with  him  in  the  midst  of  Babylon  shall  he  die.  *  *  *  See- 
ing he  despised  the  oath  by  breaking  the  covenant,  (wlicn  lo,  he 
]iad  given  his  hand,)  and  hath  done  all  these  things,  he  shall  not 
escape.  Therefor*,  thus  saith  the  Lord  God  :  "As  I  live,  snrely 
mine  oath  that  ho  hath  despised,  and  my  covenant  that  ho  hath  bro- 
ken, even  it  will  I  recompense  upon  his  own  head." 

Other  particulars  are  predicted  concerning  the  sad  fat©  of  him' 
and  his  people,  which  were  fulfilled  to  the  letter.  This  is  a  most 
instructive  narrative  and  prophecy.  Here  was  an  oath  of  allegiance 
given  to  an  enemy,  to  a  heathen,  a  eon(iueror  of  the  country,  and 
taken  under  duress,  and  yet  it  was  so  sacred  an  obligation  by  the 
Almighty,  that  iio  visited  the  most  terrible  punishment  upo*  Zede- 
kiah  and  the  people  for  its  violation,  calling  it  and  treating  it  as  a 
flagrant  act  of  perfidy  to  himself. 

The  great  practical  lesson  we  hare  to  draw  from  this  narrative  is 
that  no  one  has  a  right  to  regard  an  oath  lightly,  or  qnestioii  its 
validity,  when  taken  under  any  circumstances,  even  the  most  pres- 
sing and  dangerous,  where  no  sin  is  required.  The  puro  man  and 
of  lloly  Writ  is  he  "who  hath  not  sworn  deceiffully,''^  but  who 
^'■stceareth  to  Ma  own  luart  and  rhangeth  noty 

But  when  the  proffered  oath  requires  ©ne  to  do  that  which  ho 
knows  or  believes  to  be  wrong,  or  to  do  that  which  in  his  heart 
ho  does  not  intend  to  do,  there  is  but  one  course  that  is  honest  in 
itself,  or  that  will  keep  the  soul  clear  under  the  burning  eye  of  God 
and  that  is  to  refuse  it — yes,  to  refuse  it,  though  a  thousand  bayo- 
nets were  pointed  at  his  breast.  With  what  honor  will  the  name 
of  Muntord,  of  Kew  Orleans  be  mentioned  in  all  coming  time  ! — 
After  being  condetnued  to  the  gallows  by  the  inhuman  wretch, 
whose  name  will  live  on  the  roll  of  infamy  Avith  those  of  Jeffreys 
and  Haynan,  the  martyr  was  otiered  his  life  in  condition  that  ho 
would  subscribe  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  United  States:  but 
like  the  higher  souls  of  all  ages,  he  preferred  a  good  conscieuce  and 
an  honored  grave  to  a  wretched  life  and  a  dishonored  memory. 

This  whole  argument  gains  in  weight,  when  we  consider  the  dam- 
aging effect  to  our  cause  of  taking  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Uni- 
ted States  during  the  progress  of  the  war, 

'The  citizen  of  the  Confederate  States,  who  accepts  the  oath,  pays 
dfeai'ly  for  the  few  priviliges  he  purchases  thereby.  He  and  the 
whole  community  probably  soon  discover,  that  tliey  enjoy  as  little 
liberty  and  less  respect  from  the  enemy,  than  if  they  had  generally 
refused  the  bribe.  He  is  still  subject  to  oppression,  insult,  robbery, 
suspicion,  espionage,  contempt,  and  all  the  lighter  abominations  of 
•vulgar  tyranny.  He  is  liable  for  all  the  burdens  and  services  of  cit- 
izenship, without  the  respect  and  confidence  which  usuallV  accom- 
panies the  relation.  * 

And  w«  may  justly  argUe  from  the  general  facts  of  hnman  nature^ 


17 

Hiak  luK  mental  *«fttM'iug:»  nre  agj^raraUd  by  tai  aet,  *\-hick  K*  muet 
ffcl  to  be  .1  bitter  liumiliation,  and  the  propriet}'  «t  which  in  manj 
fftnefi  must  be  a  matter  of  doubt  to  himself,  in  spite  of  all  lii.«i  apol- 
ogies. And  whore  there  is  this  uneasiness  of  conscience,  ospccially 
where  a  great  pwhlic  cause  has  been  betrayed,  tlicre  follow*  a  mor- 
al wretchedness,  which  exceeds  all  other  suffering:.  As  long  as  a 
man  can  preserve  a  good  conscience,  h«  carries  a  fountain  of  com- 
fort in  his  breast,  which  no  adrersitTcan  dry  up.  And  where  it  i» 
the  result  of  af»ettl«d  i)cace  xritb  God,  and  a  determination  to  adher» 
to  the  right,  the  most  aggravated  forms  of  suffering,  OTen  of  death, 
mar  be  met  with  triumphant  joy.  But  where  consci<9us  rectitude 
gives  place  to  remorse,  the  joyful  courago  of  a  Paul,  gives  place  to 
the  intolerable  wretchedness  of  a  Judas. 

It  is  not  affirmed  that  u  sense  of  guilt  succetds  the  taking  of  this 
oath  in  crery  case.  There  are  abandoned  characters,  who  take  it 
without  thought  and  without  remorsp,  and  often  for  the  sake  of 
carrying  on  a  petty  traffic  between  the  contending  partie><.  Theso 
are  simply  moral  outlaws,  who  have  the  perfidy  of  Judas,  without 
liis  tenderness  of  conscieuce.  A^nd  there  have  no  doubt  boon  men 
of  honorable  character,  wlio  felt  themselves  to  bo  justified  ia  tak- 
ing this  oath.  J3ut  it  h  difticult  to  believe,  that  persons  of  enlight- 
ened minds  and  virtuous  habitu,  and  of  true  Southern  sentiments, 
could  under  the  circumstances  in  which  it  has  been  uaually  taken, 
accept  the  oath  without  a  degree  of  subsequent  mental  disquie- 
tude, which  would  far  over-balance  any  advantage  roceivod,  and 
without  being  conscious  of  damage  to  their  mor*l  natures.  And 
in  addition  to  this,  they  must  feel  the  loss  of  reputation  and  of  con- 
fidence among  friends,  and  must  dread  the  day  of  settlement  with 
their  own  generation,  and  the  future  judgment  of  history.  The 
way  of  the  transgressor  is  hard.  ||; 

2.  Another  argument  agaiust  taking  this  oath,  is  tho  encourage- 
ment thus  atforded  to  oiir  enemies  in  their  work  of  subjugation. 
They  know  that  an  army  cut  otf  from  the  moral  and  physical  sup- 
port of  the  domestic  population,  is  vitally  damaged  in  its  means  of 
prolonged  resistance.  As  long  as  the  ])eople  remain  true  to  tboir 
own  cause,  ©ur  enemies  feel  that  military  occupation  is  far  from 
subjugation.  But  when  the  people  abandon  their  owa  cause,  thoy 
feel  that  the  work  goes  braveh'  on :  that  they  have  only  to  over- 
rnn  the  Southern  territory,  and  the  work  is  done:  that  after  all,  it; 
is  an  easier  task  to  subdue  these  high-niettled  Southerneis,  than 
the  world  had  supposed.  They  conclude,  either  that  the  pcoplo 
generally  in  their  hearts  sympathized  with  the  Union  cause,  and 
that  the  prominent  argument  which  tho  U.  S.  government  at  firsfi 
urged  for  carrying  on  this  war,  had  a  good  found^rtioB,  viz:  thati 
the  people  of  the  South  were  held  down  by  a  military  usurpation, 
and  only  awaited  an  opportunity  to  testify  their  devotion  to  the 
Fnion,  or  else  that  the  courage  and  pride  of  the  Sonthern  people  ha^ 
been  greatly  overrated,  and  needed  only  to  be  put  to  the  test  to  bo 
thoroughly  humbled.  Thus  we  are  in  danger  of  becoming,  as  a  peo- 
jde,  an  object  of  contompt,  oven  in  the  eyes  of  our  enemies.  And 
were  either  supposition  true,  we  would  indeed  be  a  contcmptiblo 
people.  And  although  both  suppositions  are  false,  the  acceptance 
of  the  oath  gives  a  semblance  of  truth,  and  affords  an  apology,  if 
not  an  actual  ground  of  encouragement  to  the  enemy,  for  persist- 
ing in  the  war.  A  high  toned  people  ought  to  be  jealous  of  their 
national  as  well'af  personal  repntation,  and  ought  to  appreciate  the 


u 

influence  of  a  geudral  spirit  of  lojaltj,  iu  tiisLoarteuiug  the  enemy 
and  multiplying  his  difficulties.  Though  they  reraaia  passiva  in  the 
presence  of  the  enemy,  y«t  the  very  fact  of  their  wnbendinj»  adhe- 
rence to  their  own  principles  and  their  own  government,  opposes 
to  the  progress  of  the  invader,  a  bulwark,  whose  formidable  char- 
acter is  second  only  to  the  active  power  of  th«  army. 

3.  Finally,  consider  the  damage  done  to  the  cause  throughout  all 
our  land,  when  the  peo]>le  yield  their  position  of  loyalty.  An  evil 
example  is  always  a  public  injury.  Whatever  tends  to  weaken  the 
authority  of  the  oath,  to  sear  the  public  conscience,  and  to  loosen 
the  hold  of  moral  and  religious  principle  on  the  mindsJ  of  the  peo- 
ple, is  always  to  be  deprecated;  but  especially  in  this  great  public 
exigency,  when  our  cause  needs  to  be  buttressed  by  owary  possible 
support.  He  M'ho  sets  an  evil  example,  thereby  weakens  the  pow- 
er of  resistance  in  all  within  the  scope  of  his  influence. 

And  SHch  cases  as  this  cast  a  shade  of  discouragement  over  the 
vrhole  land.  Every  loyal  heart  feels  its  saddening  influence,  though 
pity  and  chaiity  may  put  a  seal  on^the  lips.  Struggling  as  wo  are 
for  a  common  cause,  we  have  a  right  to  expect  at  least  the  moral 
support  of  our  loyal  population;  and  if  any  section  fails  in  its  duty, 
an  increased  burden  is  thereby  thrown  upon  the  rest,  and  it  ohIv 
remains  for  these  to  imitate  the  evii  example  in  order  to  sap  the 
very  foundation  of  all  our  Lopes. 

Moreo^'er,  what  right  have  a  people  to  expect  of  t7ieir  soldiers  a 
higher  morality  or  a  truer  patriotism  than  they  exhibit  themselves  I 
What  right  have  they  to  demand  of  their  soldiers  to  leave  home, 
family,  and  business,  at  any  cost  of  inconvenience  and  loss  to 
themselves,  and  of  suffering  to  their  families,  to  live  on  poor  and 
scanty  fare,  to  sleep^under  a  wet  blanket  on  the  wet  earth,  to  fao« 
the  tempests  of  winter  and  the  fierce  heats  of  summer,  aye,  to  face 
at  any  moment  the  fiery  tempest  of  shot  and  shell,  and  to  count  no 
hardship,  no  (danger  too  great,  if  thereby  they  may  purchase  peace 
and  liberty  f<jr  their  countrv,  their  whole  country — I  «ay,  how  can 
all  this  be  demanded  of  them,  when  the  people  at  home  are  not 
willing  to  endure  unflinchingly  such  sacrifices  as  must  appear  to  the 
war-tried  veteran  insignificant,  if  not  contemptible.  If  he  acted 
on  such  principles  in  the  camp  or  on  the  field,  or  when  lying  in  the 
oold  prisons  of  the  North,  how  severely  would  he  be  judged,  and 
how  severely  dealt  with!  How  sacredly,  then,  are  we  bound  to 
avoid  all  that  would  tend  to  demoralize  the  integrity,  fortitude,  or 
courage  of  our  brave  defenders,  and  to  fortify  their  hearts  by  all 
possible  moral  support. 

But  the  argujnent  which  should  be  first  and  last — which  should 

sink  deepest  into  our  hearts — which  should  live  in  our  minds  as  the 

source  of  inspiration  for  all  our  arguments  and  all  eur  efforts — is 

that  God  Almighty  judgeth  among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  that 

He  it  is  who  putteth  down  one  and  setteth  up  another,  and  that 

profanity,  in  all  of  its  forms,  has  ever  been  a  crying  offence  in  hia 

eyes,  and  has  brought  destruction  upon  nations.     The  first  petition 

which  our  Saviour  taught  his  disciples  to  offer,  was — ''Hallowed  be 

,^y^       thy  name''' — and  if  the  spirit  of  this  petition  could  only  possess  the 

%f^:  .k|ttiinds  of  our  people-,  there  would  be  little  danger  of  error  in  regard 

•no  questions  pertaining  to  the  name  of  the  high  and  holy  One.— 

Those  that  honor  God,  will  he  honor.     And  we  have  the  promise 

that  "when  a  man's  ways  please  the  Lord,  he  maketh  evea  his 

enemies  to  be  at  peace  with  him," 


'& 


■./.W. 


^lo^ 


IP 


